Design History Society

The Ethics of Making: Craft and English Sculptural Aesthetics c. 1851-1900

Author(s): Martina Droth
Source: Journal of Design History, Vol. 17, No. 3, Dangerous Liaisons: Relationships between
Design, Craft and Art (2004), pp. 221-235
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of Design History Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3527114
Accessed: 29-08-2015 09:21 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press and Design History Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Design History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:21:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journalof DesignHistoryVol. 17 No. 3 ? 2004The DesignHistorySociety.All rightsreserved

The

Ethics

of

Making

Craftand English SculpturalAestheticsc. 1851-1900

Martina Droth

in Britainin the 1880s of a new sculpturalaestheticthat incorporated

The emergence
modesof production
colour
and craft-based
signalleda radicaldeparture
from the
ornament,
that
the
neoclassical
dominated
the
controlled
austere,
of
sculptures
appearance
first half of
character
the nineteenthcentury.Yet the decorative
of the New Sculptureand its
intersections
with debatesassociatedwith theArts and CraftsMovementhavealso
into the
its positionin the historyof sculpture.It is morereadilyabsorbed
complicated
discoursedefinedby craftreformthan treatedas a distinctsculptural
phenomenon.This
in visualandpracticalapproaches
that developedin sculpturepaperexploresthe divergence
makingbetweenthefirst and secondhalvesof the nineteenthcentury,and suggeststhat the
and sculpturalqualitiesthat emergedin the 1880s
deliberate
fusion betweendecorative
and design,as a
signallednot so muchan attemptto alignsculpturewith craft,decoration
the ways thatsculpturalaestheticscouldbe expressedand interpreted.
desireto reformulate
Keywords: Arts and CraftsMovement-Ford, EdwardOnslow-Gibson, John-Great
Exhibition-nineteenth century-sculpture

metals and coloured stones, this 'New Sculpture'

drew on elements more typically identified with
decorative art.2 A work such as Edward Onslow
Where . . . almost all English sculptors of today differ
Ford's statuette The Singer(1889) clearly illustrates
from sculptorsof other countries,is in their close connecthis
aesthetic: drawing on an Egyptian motif for
tion with the artsand crafts. . . under all circumstances,a
decorative
effect, the nude figure of a young girl,
decorativetendency governs their compositions.1
castin bronzeandpatinatedto a green tone, is dressed
Writing in a German journal in 1903, the architect in Pharaonicaccessories,and embellishedwith gilded
and theorist Hermann Muthesius identified a 'cult of highlights, semi-precious stones and coloured resin
the decorative' emerging in a specifically English paste [1]. Yet while such a playful, craft-orientated
sculptural aesthetic that had its roots in traditional approachseemed deliberatelyto blur the distinction
crafts practices. Muthesius was describing a remark- between sculpturaland decorativequalities,the New
able moment in English sculpture when the habitual Sculpture was nonetheless exhibited and criticized
hierarchies between fine and decorative art seemed to within the parametersof fine-art aesthetics,with its
be dissolving. From the 1880s into the early twenti- key figures, including Ford, Alfred Gilbert, Harry
eth century, sculpture in England was dominated by Bates,FrederickW. Pomeroy and George Frampton,
works that liberally mixed figurative conceptions acceptedinto the fold of the Royal Academy.3
with an eclectic repertoire of ornamental forms and
For Muthesius, the New Sculpture categorically
materials. Characterized by a preference for metal 'had its origins in the arts and crafts'.4Although
over marble, an emphasis on modelling and casting Muthesius'sview must be seen in the light of the
instead of carving, and the introduction of poly- Deutscher Werkbund and the influence of the Arts
chromy through enamelling, patination, mixed and Crafts Movement in Germany,5 it is also true

Introduction

221

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:21:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Martina Droth

that English sculptors engaged in certain issues central to crafts reform. Conscious of artists' alienation
in modern systems of manufacturing, they took
sculpture-making back into the studio-implicitly
renouncing mass-production, division of labour
and the devaluation of traditional working practices,
while reasserting the importance of sculptors' direct
involvement with the processes and materials of their
art. Athough the New Sculpture was thus clearly seen
to feed into important social and political debates
around the ethics of making, it cannot, however, be
understood solely as a reactionary development that
sprang from a disaffection with industrialization.
Sculptors did not reject industry outright, either
from a moral standpoint or on a practical basis but,
rather, intuitively understood that irreversible
changes affecting art production had to be acknowledged and to some extent accommodated within
their practice. Not only did they selectively borrow
industrial techniques and materials (for example,
aluminium, sand-casting, electro-plating), they took
an active stake in the new consumer markets that
were opening up to sculpture, by focusing on smaller,
'domestic' formats that could more easily be accommodated into ordinary middle-class homes. Although
the production of life-size statuary and monuments
by no means ceased, statuettes and smaller-scale
groups became a significant hallmark of the New
Sculpture.6 Adaptable in scale, varied and ornate in
appearance, this domestic form of sculpture effectively took the consumer-friendly formula of commercial art, while competing on the basis of quality
and craftsmanship as a luxurious and more seriously
artistic alternative to mass-produced ornaments.7
Industrialization represented at least in part an
inspiration to sculptors in that it offered an opportunity to reconfigure the parameters defining their
discipline. Following a period of strict containment
in the earlier part of the century, when sculpture was
identified largely with classicizing principles, broader
influences began to permeate its parameters, setting
out new aesthetic preferences that opened up the
critical discourse through which sculpture was perceived, articulated and described. By employing
forms and characters drawn from decorative arts and

Fig 1. EdwardOnslow Ford, 'The EgyptianSinger',bronze,

semi-preciousstones, resin paste, 1889
222

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:21:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Ethics of Making:Craftand EnglishSculpturalAestheticsc.1851-1900

crafts,sculpturein the late nineteenth centurybegan

to be redefinedon differentterms.Unlike neoclassical
sculpture, which operated within a rarefied, selfcontained sphere, insulated by a narrowly-defined
aesthetic reference system that underlinedits separatenessfrom the world, the New Sculpturereached
outsideconventionalboundariesandactivelyengaged
with the materialworld, thus addressing,ratherthan
staying aloof from, contemporaneouspolitical and
criticalissuesaffectingart practice.
The following pages explore a transitionin the
historyof sculpturein Britain,when the evaluationof
sculpturalobjects began to be voiced in new terms
that placed materialsand making at the centre of
aesthetics-a shift in focus that allowed sculptureto
operate outside the classicizingsculpturalparadigm.
This paper argues that the inclusion of decorative
referencesin sculpturepoints to a complex reaction
not so much againstindustrializationas againstneoclassicalconservatismand its denial of the contemporarymaterialrealitythatconnectedsculptureto the
modem world.

Making neoclassicalsculpture
Beginning very early in life the habit of constant and
daily labourin the studio, the sculptoris very apt to grow
only into the highly dextrous workman, the very facility
of whose hand often preventshis duly realizingthe extent
to which, for his work to be of value, that hand should
be constantlyguided by a highly cultivatedimagination.8
Matthew Digby Wyatt's comment, published in
1870, illustrates that debates about the sculptor's
status, as mason or 'workman' on the one hand,
and as an artist of 'cultivated imagination' on the
other, were very much alive throughout the nineteenth century. Although such debates were sometimes articulated at a quite basic level, with an often
naive and generalized understanding of studio-practice, the hierarchic distinctions they pointed to were
very real issues within sculptural practice.9 These
debates continued throughout the nineteenth century
but, as we shall see, underwent a subtle shift in
emphasis in the later decades, when earlier attempts
to distance the conceptual side of sculpture (the work
of the 'imagination') from the manual 'labour' of
sculpting, by physically divorcing the two activities in
the studio, increasingly gave way to a conscious

undertakingto link makingwith thinking,by elevating the craft of sculpture-makingas a creative endeavour.10

Neoclassicalsculpture,like laterformsof sculpture,

was closely tied to the studio, but the processesthat
took place there were carefully negotiated, finely
balancingthe physicalrequirementsof sculptureas a
thing thatis madefrom raw materialswith its statusas
an intellectual expression of the classicaltradition.
The idea that sculpturalbeauty should transcendits
materialrealityunderpinnedboth its actualprocedures and the ways in which it was presentedto the
world. Sculptors kept a certain distance from the
physicalactivitiesrequiredto make statues,articulating the material implications of their work only
insofar as they were embedded etymologically in
the overallclassicizingframeworkby which sculpture
was defined. The sheer labourand logisticsinvolved
in producingmarblesculptures(extractingthe stone
from the quarry, its transportationto the studio,
hewing the block into sculpturalform) were largely
peripheralto the projectedimage of neoclassicalart
and expressedonly in reductiveterms, obscuringthe
originsof marble,the realityof the quarry,behind the
intellectualassociationsof the sculptureswith antiquity and the Renaissance.
The studios of well-known sculptors such as
Canova, Thorvaldsen and Gibson were important
visitor-attractionsin the early nineteenth century,
and were widely documentedin publishedaccounts,
drawings and paintings. Ostensibly private, yet in
effect very public, the studio provided an arena in
which sculpture and its processeswere staged and
performed. These accounts and visual records suggest that it was widely known and indeed expected
that much of the labour of sculpture-makingbe
delegated to assistantsand pupils, and carried out
in workshops attached to the studio. Established
sculptorsrunningbusy ateliersoften took in significant numbersof pupils and assistants,many of them
aspiring sculptors themselves; the young John
Gibson, for example, began his careerunder Antonio Canova'scharge,before, as we shall see, maturing to become one of England's most renowned
exponents of late neoclassicalsculpture.In Francesco
Chiaruttini'sdrawing of Canova'sStudio(1786), we
see the master's pupils diligently copying large
statues in marble, their work conducted openly in
front of visitors [2].11

223

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:21:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Martina Droth

Fig 2. FrancescoChiaruttini,Canova'sStudio,pen and wash drawing, 1786

Sculptors were understood and seen to limit their The physical engagement of the 'master-hand' was
involvement to a series of specific tasks: principally to considered necessary only in the drawings and bozthe initial sketch or bozzetto, and to the final finishing zetti that captured the conception (Eugene Plon
of the statue's surfaces.12 The intermediary stages described Thorvaldsen's clay sketches as 'the imprint
of the thought which he had conceived'),16 and in
required to work up the model to a near-complete
statue-work not finally visible in the external sur- the finishing of the sculpture's surface, which confaces-were largely regarded as 'mechanical copy- stituted the viewer's visual connection to the artist; as
ing',13 and the employment of hands other than the J. S. Memes observed of Canova's studio-practice:
artist's own was not considered a breach in the 'when its last superficies was to be formed-when all
sculptor's engagement with the work.14 These that finally meets the eye was to be created, the
notions gained in momentum in the late neoclassical inspiring touches were trusted to the master-hand
period, with generations of sculptors who came after alone.'17
By thus underplaying the manual engagement of
Canova, such as the American sculptor Harriet
Hosmer, an erstwhile pupil of John Gibson. She the hand, the artist'swork was presented not so much
wrote unequivocally about the status of the sculptor as a physical carving-out of form than as a quasias being above that of the workman:
conceptual process: the imprint of thought, the
of inspiring touches.18 The emphasis on
those who look upon sculpture as an intellectual art, application
meant that neoclassical sculpthe
skin
or
'superficies'
requiring the exercise of taste, imagination, and delicate
communicated
ture
through an aesthetic
essentially
feeling, will never identify the artistwho conceives, comfrom the
almost
veneer
conceived
independently
who
with
the
workman
the
and
design
completes
poses,
mass beneath-the mass that, nonetheless, constituted
simply relieves him from greatphysicallabor.15
224

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:21:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Ethics of Making:Craftand EnglishSculpturalAestheticsc.1851-1900

the bulk of the sculptureand, indeed, the locus of its

materiality,embodying the hard toil of the quarry,
the sweating labour of the studio. This discontinuity-from massto surface,body to skin, metaphorically mirrored in the smoothness of the marblepermeated all aspects of the neoclassical ideal. It
extendedto the sense of remotenessaroundthe artists
who, residingin Rome, were physicallytransposed
from their individual origins into the metaphorical
home of the classicaltradition. In an industriallychanging, politically restless, and culturallydiverse
world, an influx of foreignsculptors-England'sJohn
Gibson, America's Harriet Hosmer, Denmark's
Bertel Thorvaldsen, Germany'sEmil Wolff-were
united, regardlessof nationality, by the timeless
concept of the eternalcity.
By the mid-nineteenth century, this determined
separatenesswas visibly unravelling.As commercial
interestin sculpturegrew, a burgeoningmiddle class
began to enjoy greateraccess to sculptureat home,
where new means of production and consumption
were rapidly evolving, often independently from
artists. Manufacturerstook sculpture out of the
studio, systematized its production, and made it
availablethrough commercial outlets such as furniture retailers and department stores. Within the
neoclassicalschool itself, the auraof raritycultivated
around sculpture also had to disintegrate.Its hierarchical,essentiallyaristocraticsystem of production
and consumption, which involved, for English
patrons,privatestudio visits to Rome and expensive
transportationbetween Italy and England,19 was
increasingly displaced by more consumer-friendly
ways of acquiringsculpture.20The studios of Rome
began to cater for a kind of art-tourism,as sculptors
organizedtheirproductionto varyingdegreesaround
the consumer, turning out replicas that could be
bought off the shelf without having to be specially
commissioned, and offering smaller statuettes and
busts that could be carried by hand rather than
requiringshipping.
These developments were innately incompatible
with neoclassicalvalues;commerce, with its worldly
connotation of materialisticdesire, disruptednotions
of intellectual and moral purity. Statuettes were
thought to trivializethe notion of sublime,statuesque
grandeur('downrightdrawing room art', one critic
wrote in 1854), while sculptorsproducing replicas
were felt to 'degrade sculpture into a trade-their

studio into a shop'.21 Although many sculptors,

includingEngland'sJohn Gibson, exploredcommercial avenues to a greater or lesser degree, it was
importantfor their artisticcredibilityto uphold, at
least publicly, an image of traditionalpractice. The
biographerof Gibson's Life of 1870, for example,
insistedthatthe sculptor's'thoughtsnever travelledin
the money-getting direction', and made a frank
correlationbetween commercialrestraintand moral
purity:'indifferentto money'sworth', his was 'a pure
and beautiful . . . life, without one dark corner to
conceal-the very beau ideal of the artist-career'.22
Using commerce as a yardstick for measuring
sculptors' status and artistic credibility inevitably
opened up a gap between those who were seen to
shunthe temptationsof commercialartandthosewho
openly participatedin it. While such a gap was
intellectuallyaccentuated,however, it was difficult
to maintainpracticallywith any integrity, and neoclassicalsculpturefound itself compromisedbetween
the intellectual ideals to which it aspired and the
prosaicrealityit inhabited.Ironically,it wasits fixation
with immaterialbeauty, its lack of firm, material
grounding,that would finallyleave it fragile:with its
aestheticso ineradicablybuilton intellectualandmoral
ideals,the unravellingof this symbiosisthreatenedto
leave it, shell-like,a stylisticconvention.

Neoclassical sculpture at the Great

Exhibition
The tensionbetween notions concerningneoclassical
aestheticsand actualmodes of sculpturalpracticewas
perhapsnowhere made more apparentthan at the
GreatExhibitionof 1851. A showcasefor the 'works
of industryof all nations',the Exhibitionprovidesus
with an exceptional case-study for exploring the
material contexts to which neoclassical sculpture
was exposedin the middle of the nineteenthcentury.
Celebratingthe convergencebetween commerceand
the plasticarts,it representedart-makingat both the
high and the low ends of the market,with sculptural
objectsthat rangedfrom mass-produced'Parian'and
ceramic statuettes,zinc figures and electrotypes to
more expensive bronze casts, gold and silver work,
hand-carved ivory figurines and marble statues.
Although many objects still emulated classicizing
themes, the look and texture of sculpture was

225

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:21:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MartinaDroth
diversified through the prominence of statuettes and
smaller-scale objects, an interest in polychromy, and a
preference for materials other than marble, signalling
that the life-size marble statue (although very much
present as the envoy of the classical tradition) no
longer exemplified contemporary tastes. Of the
works shown in 1851, it was those pioneered outside
the perimeters of neoclassicism that were to stamp a
lasting influence on artistic directions in the ensuing
decades. The varied exhibits of both the commercial
producers and the more exclusive crafts workshops
encompassed not only reproductions of works by
well-known sculptors-James Pradier's Leda and
Swan, for example, reproduced as an exquisite statuette in ivory, silver, turquoise and bronze by the
goldsmith Emile Froment-Meurice [3]-but other
types of objects not normally identified as sculpture,
such as candelabra, vases or table-ware. This intermixing of objects and materials foreshadowed the
aesthetic later adopted by the New Sculpture-an
aesthetic which increasingly drew sculpture together
with decorative art and design.
Placed in a context outside the sphere normally
occupied by fine art (museums, private sculpture
galleries, academic exhibitions), sculptures were
treated as part of the industrial spectacle. While
painting was specifically excluded from the Exhibition, sculpture was regarded as an innate part of
industry, an end product of raw materials 'connected
with mechanical processes, which relate to working
in metals, wood, or marble'."23 Here, the notion of
reproduction, far from being read as a move to
'degrade sculpture into a trade', was supported as a
vehicle for 'the diffusion of good taste'. The capacity
for mass-producing sculptures commercially raised
utopian hopes about the educational benefits that
would be spread through society:

Fig 3. Emile Froment-Meurice and James Pradier, Leda and

Swan, 66 cm high, ivory, gold, silver, turquoise, bronze, socle in
grey marble, 1849

group Hunter and Dog (sometimes also known as The

Greek Hunter [4] attracted acclaim in the sculpture
court ('a lively and imaginative conception . . .
combined with an exquisite feeling for harmony of
lines'),25 much less noticeable were the miniaturized
copies of his statues in Parian porcelain, mass-profirm
ceramic
the
commercial
duced
by
Copeland [5].26 Other neoclassicists were similarly
By the . . . adaptation of cheap materials and economical
represented: John Bell's marble Dorotheaadapted for a
processesto the multiplicationof works of art, the best light-fitting by Winfield of Birmingham,27 and his
models are daily brought more and more within the
Slayer cast in iron by Coalbrookdale;
reach of all classes.New and pure sources of enjoyment, Eagle
Thorvaldsen's Ganymede reproduced as a porcelain
hitherto the privilege of the few, are thus opened to all
statuette by Copenhagen's Royal Porcelain Manuthe membersof civilized society.24
factory.28 Many of these productions were either
The Exhibition reveals a neoclassical school torn made with modern techniques and materials (such
between its commitment to intellectual principles on as Parian porcelain or electroplating), or represented
the one hand, and a desire to take a share in emergent experimental and novel ventures for manufacturers
aesthetics and in new commercial opportunities on normally engaged in other businesses (such as Coalthe other. Thus, while John Gibson's life-size marble brookdale, better known for making bridges).29
226

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:21:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Ethics of Making:Craftand EnglishSculpturalAestheticsc.1851-1900

Fig 4. Hunter and Dog

Fig 5. 'Statuary Porcelain-Narcissus,

That a revision was taking place not only of

sculptural practice but also of the definitions of
what constituted sculpture was both visually evident
and critically articulated in the vast literature that
accompanied the Great Exhibition,3 but these
observations were largely kept separate from neoclassical discourse.31 The construction of this uneven
discourse can be tracked in part through the Reports
by the Juries, published in several editions in 1852,
which brought into a public forum the critical
debates of the Exhibition. In the Reports,neoclassical
opinion was represented by a 'Fine Art Jury' made
up of individuals at the heart of the academic
establishment. The interests of sculpture were represented by John Gibson, Royal Academician and
Britain's most eminent neoclassicist, yet whose
own work quietly straddled the rifts opening up in
sculptural aesthetics.32 Appointed to pass critical
judgement on the exhibits of the fine-art courts,
the Jury's often lengthy and discursive considerations
suggest on the one hand an intense loyalty to
neoclassical conventions, and on the other a pro-

found anxiety about the disintegration of sculpture's

special artistic position in a realm separate from
ordinary material things.33 Despite an ostensible
embrace of diversity and inclusiveness, an underlying
elitism was at work, upholding a very focused and
narrow designation of sculpture's role-a contradiction reflected metaphorically in the vocal presence of Gibson's much-praised Hunter and Dog, and
the muteness of his Parian statuettes.
The Reports by the Julriespoint to a considerable
reluctance to associate neoclassical sculpture with
materials and processes, drawing on this basis a
sharp division between classicizing statues and
other types of sculpture. Excluding the qualitative
value of materials in their assessment, and instead
invoking a classicizing notion of transcendental
beauty ('The sculptor must have so treated the
solid material . . . as not to remind the spectator
of the nature of the substance employed'),34 the
Reports subtly but systematically undermine new
sculptural developments. For instance, in its evaluation of 'Sculpture on a small scale' from France, the

After Gibson'

227

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:21:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MartinaDroth

Jury, although acknowledging the 'extraordinary

abundance of small groups of human figures and
animals', of which many 'are from the designs of
distinguished artists', was nonetheless reluctant to
esteem these as works of fine art: 'a great number
of these specimens do not rise above the level of
very prettyornaments,executed without much style,
and a notice of them here would occupy too much
space.'35Bronze sculptureproved similarlycontentious, the jury conceding on the one hand that 'the
art of casting in sculpture in different metals is
obviouslyof the greatestimportancefor the diffusion
of the finest works', while on the other stressingthat
'the Jury . . . purposely abstainedfrom judging of
such metal-casts as they conceived to have been
exhibited merely for the purpose of showing . . . a
new process, or the novel use of a particular
metal.'36 Bronze is not elevated above technical
merit, with sculpturesbriefly summarizedas 'specimens of mechanical industry', 'successfulspecimen
of raw casting', or 'good example of casting and
tooling'.37 In direct contradiction of the ethos of the
Exhibition, the Jury insisted on traditional academic
criteria with which to make their evaluations of
'sculpture proper':
the Jury . . . looked for the embodiment

of ideas,

thought, feeling, and passion;not for the mere imitation

of nature, however true in detail, or admirablein execution. They have looked for originalityand invention . . .
expressedin that style which has for twenty-three centuries been the wonder of every civilised people, and the
standard of excellence to which artists of the highest
orderhave endeavouredto attain.38
Referring contemporary artists to the antique was
standard practice at this time, but the paradox of
looking for 'originality and invention' in the classical
style of 'twenty-three centuries' past reads as an
incongruous anachronism in the context of an industrial exhibition celebrating progress and modernityand as a strategic suppression of sculpture created
outside classicizing paradigms.39
In elevating the emulation of a classicizing 'style'
over 'admirable . . . execution'-in

other words, by

specifically dismissing the value of craft and makingthe Jury effectively undermined the importance of
the artist's hand in creating the work of art. Its
emphatic division between 'ideas, thought, feeling'
and their 'execution', intended to elevate sculpture

above worldly concerns, paradoxicallycreated an

alignment with the new commercial practices,
where a similar reduction of artistic involvement
was implemented: firms such as Copeland were
taking existing 'ideas' (such as Gibson'sstatues)and
applyingthem to new processesandmaterials(suchas
Parianporcelain). The emphasiswas firmly on the
practicalitiesof production,with innovationinvested
less into the conception of new designs.40By presenting sculptures as end products of a series of
'economical processes' applied to sculptors' 'best
models', commercialproducersin a sense mimicked
neoclassicalpractice:both separatedthe physicalact
of makingfrom the intellectualconception or 'idea'.
Steppinginto the gap cultivatedin neoclassicalideology, the new entrantsto the arenaof art-production
led the systems of sculpture-makingto a logical
conclusion, by taking the processesaway from the
studioand eliminatingthe need for any physicalinput
from the sculptor.

Rethinking sculptureand craft

The decades that followed the Great Exhibition
witnessed an extensive rethinking of the ethics of
artisticpractices.41Reacting forcefullyagainstindustrialmanufactureand modern systemsof production,
this processof re-evaluationand reformhas tendedto
be identifiedwith the decorativeartsand the emergence of the Arts and Crafts Movement, where
arguablysome of the most importanttransformative
consequenceswere felt.42Artistsanddesignerssuchas
Walter Crane looked back upon the Exhibition as a
lesson in the ethics of making,a timely warningthat
the 'break-upof old traditionsin the craftsof design',
'division of labour, and . . . machine labour, have
rapidlydestroyedthe art of the people, and are fast
vulgarisingand destroyingall local characteristicsin
art'.43

The focused, critical attention on methods of

production and materials that emerged in the
second half of the nineteenth century also informed
other areasof art-making.Notably, it influencedthe
emergence of a sculpturalpractice deeply involved
with the practicalskills (based both in traditional
craftsand modern methods) requiredto manipulate
a wide range of materialsother than marble,such as
bronze, ivory and preciousmetals,as well as modem

228

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:21:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Ethics of Making:Craftand EnglishSculpturalAestheticsc.1851-1900

materialssuch as aluminium.While it is tempting to

subsume this sculpture,with its overall ornamental
look and craft-orientatedapproach,into the discourse
around crafts reform-as did Muthesius and other
criticsin the 1900s and 1910s44-a closer look at its
charactersuggeststhat it developedin ways thatwere
often quite separatefrom, even antitheticalto, such
debates. The impetus behind the adoption of an
approachapparentlyrooted in a crafts ethic seems
to have been promptednot so much out of a desireto
alignsculpturewith the artsand craftsas out of a need
to articulatea sculpturalidentityseparatefrom that of
neoclassicism,by reconstitutingsculptureas a vital,
materialpresencein the modernworld. Commercial,
modern methods were neither wholly contested nor
fully rejected,but ratherselectivelyadaptedto coexist
with workshop-basedcraftspractices.
Retrospective reactions to the Great Exhibition
among sculptorsand sculpturecriticswere often quite
differentfrom those voiced by Crane and his circle.
Despite throwing up some ostensible moral dilemmas, the Exhibition also suggestedfresh opportunities, not least by arousing a new level of popular
interestin sculpture.As the EnglishsculptorMorton
Edwardsremarkedin 1879: 'previousto the year of
1851 there was but little sculptureto be seen by the
public in London . . . There were no Parianor terracotta manufacturers(atany rateon theirpresentscale)
to bring out copies of. . . antique and modern
sculptural art,' and the only works available to
public view were 'A few busts and statues [in] the
small sculpture-room at the Royal Academy at
TrafalgarSquarebefore its enlargementwas carried

discipline.Moreover, it unwittinglycomprisedan act

of reconstitutingsculptureas a physically-grounded,
materially-informedart.
Amongst the importantissuesthat occupied practising sculptorsof later generationswas the question
of putting forwarda sculpturalidentity that would
allow formal ambitions to coexist with material
developments. The increasingdiversity of practice,
production and aestheticsneeded to be accommodatedformallyin criticaldiscourse.While neoclassical
sculptors,in their denialof makingas an intrinsicpart
of their practice,had inadvertentlyrelinquishedcontrol over their discipline to non-artisticproducers,
new generationsof sculptorsin the following decades
began to embrace the interplaybetween sculpture
and decorative art, materialsand making, as elementaryto theirpractice.By the 1880s, the questionof
howsculpturewas made became interlockedwith its
aestheticevaluation,and indeed formed the locus for
developingnew aesthetics-a shiftin emphasisthat is
profoundly relevant to our understanding of
sculpture'sdevelopmentaway from classicizingconventions towardsmore modem forms by the end of
the century.

out'.45 The Great Exhibition, Edwards implies, went

Writing in 1898 on the sculptureof FrederickW.

Pomeroy andhis circle,the artistand criticAlfredLys
Baldry perceptively recognized that the decorative
characterof this work representeda fundamentalshift
in sculpturalexpression.Baldry, along with a small
handful of other important sculpture critics who
included Edmund Gosse, Cosmo Monkhouse and
Marion Spielmann,saw this as a processof extending
and loosening up sculpturallanguage,ratherthan as a
merging of, or confusion between, disciplines-a
significantdistinctionoften missedby more conservative analysts.49New forms, styles and characters
derived from decorative patterningand ornamental
design provided alternativesto classicizingmodes of
expression,opening up and transformingideasabout
what sculpture was or should be. Works such as

some way to redressingthe inadequaterepresentation

of sculpture,which tended to be treatedas secondary
to painting at the annualAcademy shows.46Having
excluded paintingsaltogetheron the basis that they
were 'but little affectedby materialconditions',47the
GreatExhibition in effect offeredthe firstlarge-scale
public showcase of contemporarysculpture,lending
artistsunprecedentedaccess to a vast, internationally
diverse audience, awakeningcuriosityin their work
and bringingit to public attention.The wide-ranging
scope of the Exhibition, representingworks of art
that stood well outside the neoclassicalparadigm,
demonstratedthat sculpturecould be popular,pleasurable and accessible,and forced a radicalre-evaluation of the parametersthat defined sculptureas a

Craftand the 'New Sculpture'

[T]he present-daytaste for decorative sculpture . . . has
opened up a vast field of opportunitiesfor artisticpractice,
and has aided materiallyto destroy the tradition which
threateneda few yearsago to make the art of the sculptor
a thing without vitalityor active capacity.48

229

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:21:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MartinaDroth
broad handling and uniform surfaces were essential
sculptural characteristics. As Edmund Gosse, a key
supporter of the new artists, noted in 1890: 'we
cannot pretend to go back to this colourless type.
Mr. Thornycroft and Mr. Gilbert have opened our
eyes to living possibilities, to splendid varieties in
sculpture. '0

Fig 6. Harry Bates, lIorsJanna Vitae, 81 cims, bronze, ivory and

mother-of-pearl, 1899

Pomeroy's Love the Conqueror (1892-93), Edward

Onslow Ford's The Singer [1], or Harry Bates's Mors
Janiiia Vitae (1899) [6], mixed figurative conceptions
with a rich, decorative feel through the use of ornate
accessories, the introduction of colour, manipulation
of scale, intricate detailing and handling of materials.
The New Sculpture embodied a sense of informality,
fluidity and sensitive expressiveness which challenged
the neoclassical sentiment that simplicity of form,

Crucially, subject matter was expressed not only

compositionally, but also through the specificity of
materials and their treatment. Neither genre nor
classical mythology, neither realist nor idealised, the
New Sculpture intoned imaginative fantasies through
juxtaposed surfaces, colours and textures, creating
dream worlds that hovered between the symbolist
and the surreal. It was an aesthetic that relied on
excellence of execution to convey the mood and
feeling of the subjects represented. The employment
of exquisite, often delicate materials called for skilful,
sensitive handling, each substance requiring its own
peculiar treatment, as a work such as Bates's large
statuette group MorsJanua Vitae demonstrates. Metaphorically offsetting light against dark, a pale figure of
'Love' in delicately-honed ivory is carefully set into
the embrace of the dark bronze shadow of 'Death', its
graceful, sweeping wings finely and elaborately modelled. Both figures appear to be floating off an
intricately-undercut pedestal-a tiny fantasy world
of spires and castles, inlaid with mother-of-pearl,
and protected by a pair of minute ivory angels.
That works such as this, combining carving, modelling and casting, relied on a precise convergence
between technical skill and aesthetic intent was well
understood by some of the more perceptive critics at
the time. Baldry, for instance, observed that such
'technical results . . . illustrate well-thought out
on questions of real aesthetic
conclusions
moment'.5l Sculptural effects, in other words, were
set in motion through an overt attention to decorative materials and accomplished craftsmanship.
It was this grounding of aesthetics in the physical
materiality of a work of art that distinguished the
New Sculptors from their neoclassical predecessors.
Where neoclassical artists had relied on an intellectual
signature, the New Sculptors highlighted the physical
and visual imprint of the artist's hand. The neoclassicists' conscious distancing of themselves from the
physical work of sculpture was seen as a fundamental
failing by New Sculptors and their critics: 'the practical insight . . . into refinements of technique and

230

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:21:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Ethics of Making:Craftand EnglishSculpturalAestheticsc.1851-1900

execution

. . . had been hitherto insufficiently

con-

sidered by British sculptors', Baldry noted in 1900.52

The sharp decline in the critical estimation of marble
and of marble-carving in the second half of the
nineteenth century can be directly linked with this
failure to honour the intrinsic value of making, as
Ruskin noted in 1870: 'neither [the sculptor] nor the
public recognize the touch of the chisel as expressive
of personal feeling or power,

. . . nothing

is looked

for except mechanical polish.'53 Drawing a subtle

distinction between technical competence and a
more sensitive, poetic 'feeling', Ruskin's words transform the notional refinement of surfaces by the
'master-hand' into a synthetic, perfunctory task,
stripping neoclassical sculpture of the essential 'skin'
that had embodied its sense of individual creativity.
This metaphorical denuding of classicizing aesthetics was reflected practically and visually in the
preferences of the New Sculpture of the 1880s. The
previously calm, even surfaces of carved marble ('the
muscles should not be represented by prominences so
... as to impair the general breadth')54were replaced
by an animated, energetic modelling ('rhythm of line
and mass, and the swelling contours of the human
body'),55 often translated by casting into bronze and
other metals so as to preserve directly the impressions
of the sculptor's hand. Gosse understood this facility
as a significant distinction from the neoclassicists:
'The new school have discovered the value and the
charm of metal, in which their finest touch can be
reproduced without any modification.'56 The rejection of neoclassical traditions not only allowed sculptors to broaden their repertoire, it also, as Gosse
implies, brought to bear new material priorities that
narrowed the gap between artistic conception and
finished object.
In their intense concentration on materials and
methods of making, the New Sculptors shared some
ground with the Arts and Crafts Movement,57 and
also joined in, if patchily, some of the ethical debates
that became topical at this time. Some, like George
Frampton, used the label 'all-round craftsman' or 'art
worker', and took membership of the Art Workers'
Guild and Arts and Crafts Society.58 Others, like
Ford, deliberately associated sculpture making with
a craft-orientated mode of production: 'A school of
sculpture should include masonry, stone carving in all
its branches, designing and modelling, and every
minor trade that is in any way connected with

Fig 7. Edward Onslow Ford in his studio

art.'59 A photograph taken of Ford in 1895, to

mark his election to the Royal Academy, sums up

the interdisciplinary image cultivated by the New
Sculptors [7]. In the studio, alone, the artist is
surrounded by well-known examples of his workThe Singer and Folly prominently to the fore, a
maquette for the Ralph WardJackson Memorialin the
background, a glimpse of General Gordonon a Camel
to the right. A tool in his hand, as though pausing
from modelling his Folly, Ford presents himself as
master and craftsman of an eclectic range of sculpture,
suggesting the diversity of his skills, and a refusal to
privilege the grand monumental project over the
small ornamental statuette."
The New Sculpture was however not an exclusively crafts-based practice. Although trained in a
broad range of skills and techniques required to
handle different materials, sculptors also adopted
processes and materials drawn from modern industrial
sources;61 at the same time, they drew on commercial
strategies to enhance the appeal of their work. In

231

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:21:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MartinaDroth

focusing on statuettesand smallergroups, the New

Sculptors tapped into the growing demand for
decorative art-objects, enabling them to exploit a
consumer market driven by the interior decorating
movement.62 Although English sculptors largely
avoided the kind of mass-productionof statuettes
commonly practiced in France,63they were nonetheless alert to opportunitiesaffordedby those markets. Thus, while the New Sculptorswere very much
associatedwith a craftsethic, they were also alert to
commercial opportunities.Ford, for example, publicly calledfor a 'publishingcompany'to produceand
disseminatestatuettes:
Thereis a very greatdemandfor cheapbronzessuch as
wouldcome withinthe reachof thosewhosemeanswill
not permitof theirpurchasing
anythingmore expensive
thanfirst-rateetchings. . . We areveryanxiousthatthe
demandshouldbe supplied.64
Ford'sstancesuggeststhat,farfrom leadingconsumer
taste, as craftsreformersset out to do, sculptorswere
at least partly following the impulses of the market
(even if targeting its upper end) by adaptingtheir
output to the demandthathad sprungup for domestic sculpture.65

Conclusion
While fosteringsome persuasivelinks with the ethics
of late-nineteenth-century crafts reform, neither
Ford, Bates, Framptonnor Pomeroy can be aligned
with one fixed ideology. Rather, these artistscan be
described as eclectically participatory,identifying
emergent trends and partakingof opportunitiesas
they arose. The qualitiesthat attractedsculptorsto
decorative art-the freedom to combine invented,
fantasticforms with figurativeideas, and the sheer
visual indulgence in rich, colourful materials-were
qualitiesthat ran exactly counter to those cherished
by craftsreformers,as indeed they ran counter to the
aestheticsof neoclassicism.The vibrant,often flamboyant luxuriousnessof the New Sculpturesharedits
aesthetic with both earlier and contemporaneous
styles, where the sculptural liberally intersected
with the ornamental and decorative, as in the
rococoesque look of Second Empire art,66 the
emergent European Art Nouveau and symbolist
art.67Thus, while we can identify in HarryBates's
MorsJanua Vitaetraces of James Pradier'sLedaand

Swan shown at the Great Exhibition almost half a

century earlier,and find echoes of Charlesvon der
Stappen's Sphinx Mysterieux (1897) in George
Frampton's near-contemporaneous Lamia (1899),
few parallels can be drawn between the New
Sculptureand the designs of C. R. Ashbee, Archibald Knox or ChristopherDresser. While arts and
crafts designersunderstood ornament as something
that must be contained, controlledand, to a degree,
suppressed, the New Sculptors seized it as an
expressive,transformativeenergythat, as some critics
were able to recognize, representedan 'awakening'
of their art.68
By admittingdecorativeinfluencesinto a discipline
previouslylimitedby classicizingprinciples,figurative
conception began to be definedby differentcriteria,
which reconfigured, and sometimes undermined,
modes of expressingthe figure. HarryBates's'Love'
[6] appearsmore as a cipher,a figurativestreakof pale
ivory set into a flourishof bronze, than as a concrete
female body. EdwardOnslow Ford's The Singer[1],
with its green skin and fanciful Egyptian dress, is
more puppet-like than a formal bodily presence.
Originally paired with a figure of Applause,each
presented on a tall, ornate plinth, the work functioned as much as a complete, decorativeensembleas
an autonomoussculpture.By privilegingthe decorative value of materialsand subjects,the New Sculpture establisheda set of referencepoints that relied
not on form, outline and classicizingthemes (as did
neoclassicalworks such as Gibson'sHunterandDog),
but on an internal compositionalcomplexity and a
materialmultiplicitythat was evocative, mythic, and
even surreal.
While the New Sculptureis characterizedby its
decorative,often playfuland even abstractqualities,
these same qualitieshave also problematizedits place
in the historyof sculpture.Itsintersectionswith issues
associatedwith craftsreform have frequentlycaused
its contributionsto sculpturalaestheticsto be overlooked. Despite being largely received, in its own
time, within the context of sculpture,ratherthanthat
of decorative or applied art, the implicationsof its
decorativereferenceshave seldom been recognized,
casting it as a somewhat anomalous and isolated
phenomenon in sculpturalterms.69 Its absorption
into arts and craftsdiscoursehappenedmore easily,
asMuthesius'sarticleof 1903 suggests,but to conflate
the New Sculpturewith the issuesof craftsreformis

232

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:21:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Ethics of Making: Craft and English Sculptural Aesthetics c.1851-1900

to miss its radical transformation and modernization

of sculptural aesthetics. The decorative character and
crafts-orientated materiality of the New Sculpture
not only served to introduce a fresh, colourful look
to an art previously cast as plain and austere, it also
eroded a series of prerequisites that had determined
how sculpture was conceived, produced and understood. By firmly anchoring sculpture in the material
reality of which it was part, and admitting commercial as well as industrial influences into its parameters,
the New Sculptors developed their discipline into
one that participated in and contributed to, rather
than avoided, contemporary debates and modern

tion of 1851, he received a knighthood for his work on the

India Office with Sir George Gilbert Scott in 1855, and was
firstSladeProfessorof Fine Art at Cambridgefrom 1869.
9 See H. Honour, 'Canova'sStudio Practice', Burlington
Magazine, vol. 114, 1972, pp. 146-59, 214-29. Honour's seminal
and illuminatingstudyunderlinesthe gap between perceptions
aboutsculptors'practices,andactualproceduresthatwent on in
the studio.
10 This shift can be traced through contemporarywritings, in
particularsculptors'biographies.FrancisChantrey'sbiography
providesone of many examplesthat could be cited here: 'Of
course,it scarcelyneed be mentioned,thatfew, if any, of these
figureswere actuallyand wholly chiselled
by Chantrey,propries
manibus;he employed severalfirst-rateassistants'(J. Holland,
Memorials
In Hallamshire
and
RA, Sculptor.
of SirFrancisChantrey,
Elsewhere,
London, Longman,1851, p. 294).

11 Count Cicognaraclaimed Canova establishedthe custom of

'the practice. . . he ... introducedfor lessening
using assistants:
the labourof the sculptor,by employinginferiorworkmen to
MartinaDroth
reduce the block to the last stratum. . ., was not then in use'
Henry Moore Institute
and
(L. Cicognara, The Worksof AntonioCanovain Sculpture
Modelling,1824, London, Chatto and Windus, 1876, p. 13).
12 Of course, not all sculptorsemployed the same procedures.I
am here referringto widely-held perceptionsabout sculpture
making, rather than attemptingto pinpoint actual practices,
1 My translation.Hermann Muthesius, 'Kunst und Leben in
which is beyond the scope of this essay.That these perceptions
fur BildendeKunst,1903, p. 75.
England',Zeitschrift
were partly generated by the public image presented via
2 Three key sourcebooks are A. Bliihm et al, The Colourof
sculptors'studios is suggestedby Hugh Honour, who shows
Sculpture,1840-1910 (exhibition catalogue), Leeds, Henry
that Canova was much more physicallyinvolved in marble
Moore Institute,and Amsterdam,Van Gogh Museum, 1996.
carvingthanwas widely presumed.That Canovacarriedout his
S. Beattie, The New Sculpture,
New Haven & London, Yale
own work in a privateroom, concealedfrom the manyvisitors
University Press, 1983. B. Read, VictorianSculpture,New
attractedto his public studios,indicatesthe crucialrole played
Haven & London, Yale University Press, 1982. See also
by the open studio in disseminatingnotions about sculptural
Edmund Gosse, the writer and critic who coined the label
practice. I am gratefulto Alex Potts for discussingthis point
'New Sculpture'in an articlethat attemptedthe firstsurveyof
with me. See Honour, 'Canova'sStudio Practice',pp. 147-8.
this work: 'The New Sculpture1879-1894', ArtJournal,1894,
For a more recent analysisof sculpturemaking in the late
pp. 138-42, 199-203, 277-82, 306-11.
eighteenth century, see Malcolm Baker's compelling study,
Figuredin Marble:TheMakingand Viewingof Eighteenth
Century
3 For the Royal Academy'spromotion of New Sculptorsunder
London, V&A Publications,2000, chapters3, 5 and
Sculpture,
the stewardship of Frederic Leighton, see Read, Victorian
6. See also A. Potts, The SculpturalImagination:Figurative,
Sculpture,
p. 292.
Minimalist,New Haven & London, Yale University
Modernist,
4 Muthesius,'Kunstund Leben', p. 74.
Press, 2000, pp. 42-59. Contemporarycritical and fictional
5 Further reading includes F. Schwarz, The Werkbund:
accountsof studiovisitsinclude Florentia,'A Walk throughthe
Design
Studios of Rome', Art Journal, 1854, p. 287, and N.
TheoryandMassCultureBeforetheFirstWorldWar,New Haven
& London, Yale UniversityPress, 1996.
Hawthorne, The MarbleFaun,Boston 1860.
issues.

Notes

6 MuthesiuscorrectlyobservedthatEnglishsculptorsfocused on
'more intimate, smallereffects',yet his assertionthat they left
the field of the 'monumentalmainlyunploughed'was inaccurate ('Kunstund Leben',p. 74). The late Victorianeragenerated
a prolific programmeof monumentaland architecturalsculpture. See Read, Victorian
Sculpture,
chapters9-10; Beattie, The
New Sculpture,
chapters3, 4 and 8.
7 For more on 'domestic'sculpture,see my 'SmallSculpturec.
1900: The "New Statuette"in English SculpturalAesthetics',
in D. Getsy (ed.), Sculpture
and the Pursuitof a ModernIdealin
Britain,London, Ashgate, 2004. See also Beattie, The New
Sculpture,
chapter7.

13 G. Halse, The Modeller:

A Guideto the Principles
and Practice
of
Sculpture,
for the Use of StudentsandAmateurs,
George Rowney,
n.d. (before 1878), p. 60.
14 Sculptorswere sometimescriticizedfor not makingenough use
of assistants.HoratioGreenough'sinsistenceon takingmuch of
the sculptinginto his own handsprompteda patronto remark
on 'this pitiablelabour . . . which should have been done by
more experienced workmen'. Cited in N. Wright, Horatio
The FirstAmericanSculptor,University of PennsylGreenough:
vania Press, 1963, p. 69.

15 C. Carr(ed.), HarrietHosmer:LettersandMemoirs,
London,John
Lane, 1913, p. 375. Hosmer, in an essaythat candidlyunveiled
8 M. D. Wyatt, FineArt: A Sketchof its History,Theory,Practice,
neoclassicalpractices,went so far as to statepubliclythat some
andApplication
to Industry,Beinga Courseof Lectures
Deliveredat
sculptorsdid not touch their work pastthe initialmodel-stage:
in 1870, London & New York, Macmillan,1870,
'It is true, that in some cases, the finishing touches are
Cambridge
introducedby the artisthimself; but I suspect that few who
p. 176. Wyatt, an architectand writer,was an influentialfigure
in the academicestablishment.Secretaryof the GreatExhibihave accomplishedand competent workmen give much of
233

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:21:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Martina Droth
their time to the mallet or the chisel' (p. 272). Hosmer's
statementmust also be seen in terms of the complex issue of
women making a career in the male-dominated world of
sculpture. See D. Cherry, Beyondthe Frame:Feminismand
VisualCulture,Britain1850-1900, Routledge, 2000, chapter4.
16 E. Plon, Thorvaldsen:
His Life and Works,trans.Cashel Hoey,
London, Richard Bentley and Son, 1874, p. 210. See also
Baker, Figuredin Marble,chapter3.

Academy); and Royal Mint chief medallistW. Wyon (also

Royal Academician).See Reportsby theJuries,p. 1529.
as a
33 AlisonYarringtonoffersa readingof the ReportsbytheJuries
division between 'high and low', in 'Under the Spell of
Madame Tussaud', in Bliihm et al, The Colourof Sculpture,
pp. 85-7.

34 Reportsby theJuries,p. 692.

35 Ibid., p. 701.
17 J. S. Memes, Memoirsof AntonioCanova,witha CriticalAnalysis
of his Worksand an HistoricalOverviewof ModernSculpture, 36 Ibid., p. 1531.
Edinburgh& London, 1825, p. 557.
37 Ibid., p. 1531.
18 My thinkinghere owes much to Alex Potts. See his insightful 38 Ibid., p. 1532.
discussion of Canova's surfacesin The Sculptural
Imagination, 39 It also
representsa rejection of realism,a qualitythat increaspp. 42-3.
ingly infringed upon ideal sculpture. For an exploration of
19 See for example the biographyof John Gibson, which referrealismand the New Sculpture,see D. Getsy, "'Hard Realences numerouspatronsof aristocraticandroyalorigin (includism": The Thanatic Corporealityof Edward Onslow Ford's
ing the Duke of Devonshire, Sir George Beaumont, Lord
ShelleyMemorial', VisualCulturein Britain,vol. 3, no. 1, 2002,
George Cavendish,Emperor and EmpressFrederickof Gerpp. 53-76.
many and Queen Victoria).T. Matthews,TheBiography
ofJohn 40 This was
particularlyevident in terms of sculpturaldesign,
Gibson,R.A., Sculptor,Rome, London, William Heinemann,
where classicizingformsand subjectswere often repetitiveand
1911.
barely distinguishablefrom each other. When it came to
20 For more on trade links between Italy and England, see C.
'applied'art-functional objects such as cutlery,lampsor teaSicca & A. Yarrington (eds.), The LustrousTrade:Material
services-the object'sbasicdesign (for example,a fork) would
in EnglandandItalyc. 1700Cultureand theHistoryof Sculpture
be supplementedby novel ornamentation,not only added to
1860, LeicesterUniversityPress,2000.
the surface,but also seen in the actualshapeof the object:the
forkmight be formedinto a twisted,exaggeratedvegetalshape.
21 Florentia,'A Walk through the Studiosof Rome', p. 287.
For examples,see ArtJournalIllustrated
Catalogue.
22 Lady Eastlake(ed.), Life ofJohn Gibson,R.A. Sculptor,Long41 That is not to say that craftsand designreformsprangfrom the
mans, Green and Co., 1870, pp. 8-10.
GreatExhibition;rather,1851 came (andcontinues)to be seen
andIllustrated
23 OfficialDescriptive
Catalogue,GreatExhibitionof the
as a kind of signpostor referencepoint from which comparall
1851.
Worksof Industryof Nations,
By Authorityof theRoyal
isonswere drawn.LouisePurbrickeloquentlyilluminatessome
London, SpicerBrothers,1851, p. 819.
Commission,
of the problemsof representing1851 as a historicalmoment.
24 Exhibitionof the Worksof Industry
See her introductionin L. Purbrick(ed.), The GreatExhibition
ofAll Nations1851, Reportsby
in the ThirtyClassesintowhichtheExhibition
theJurieson Subjects
of 1851: New Interdisciplinary
Essays, ManchesterUniversity
wasDivided.By Authorityof theRoyalCommission,
vol. 3, Spicer
Press,2001.
Brothers,1852, p. 1531 (furtherreferencesgiven as Reportsby 42 There are
many examplesone might cite for furtherreading.
theJuries).
Perhaps it is more useful to direct the reader to Anthony
25 Ibid., p. 692.
Coulson'sBibliography
of Designin Britain1851-1870, London,
Design Council, 1979, which includesa section devoted to the
26 TheArtJournalIllustrated
Catalogue
of theCrystalPalaceExhibition
GreatExhibition(mythanksto GraceLees-Maffeiforsuggesting
(1851), Dover Publications,1970, p. 181.
thisresource).Amongstthe manytextsI havefoundparticularly
27 ArtJournalIllustrated
181.
Catalogue,
p.
helpful are J. Lubbock, The Tyrannyof Taste:The Politicsof
Architecture
and Design in Britain1550-1960, New Haven &
28 Reportsby theJuries,p. 706.
London,Yale UniversityPress,1995, andC. Wainwright,'The
29 A. Raistrick,Coalbrookdale
1709-1959, London, 1959, p. 16.
Legacy of the Nineteenth Century', in P. Greenhalgh(ed.),
30 A specialcollection of catalogues,books andjournalsrelating
Modernism
in Design,London, Reaktion, 1990.
to the Great Exhibition is available at the University of
43 W. Crane, The Claimsof Decorative
Art,London, Lawrenceand
Reading.
Bullen, 1892, p. 8, p. 13.
31 Although innovationsin massproduction, such as the invention of Parian porcelain, were commented on, often posi- 44 See StellaTillyardfor a compellingstudyof the fusionbetween
the criticallanguagethat defined the artsand crafts,and that
tively, by the press, these discussions did not as a rule
which emerged in the early twentieth century to describe
intersect critical discourse around neoclassicalsculpture. For
sculpture.Tillyard'sstudy has been an importantpart of my
a discussion of the reception of Parian in the nineteenth
thinking in this essay:S. K. Tillyard, The Impactof Modernism
A
century, see P. Atterbury (ed.), The ParianPhenomenon:
1900-1920: EarlyModernism
andtheArtsandCraftsMovement
in
Survey of VictorianParian Porcelain Statuary and Busts,
Edwardian
England,London & New York, Routledge, 1988,
R. Dennis, 1989.
chapter4.
32 The Jurywas made up of 15 individuals,includingarchitectC.
45
M.
Edwards,A Guideto Modellingin Clay and Wax, London,
R. Cockerell (friend of Gibson and Royal Academician);
LechetierBarbe, 1879, p. 9. Edwardswas HonorarySecretary
architect,ecclesiologistand writer A. W. N. Pugin (designer
to the Society of Sculptors.
of the Medieval Court at the Great Exhibition); Richard
and
influential
advisor
to
the
Government
46
For much of the nineteenth century,the Royal Academywas
Redgrave (painter
on policies on art education;later also elected to the Royal
criticized for not representingsculptureadequately,a failing
234

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:21:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Ethics of Making: Craft and English Sculptural Aesthetics c.1851-1900

that was examinedin an official'Enquiryinto the State of the
Royal Academy'in 1863, at which Edwardsgave evidence. See
Read, Victorian
Sculpture,
p. 68.

47
48
49

50
51

52
53

54
55
56
57

judging a work of art.' See Tillyard,The Impactof Modernism,

pp. 20-2.
58 This mustalsobe understoodas a backlashagainstthe perceived
elitismof'fine artists'.FredMiller, 'GeorgeFrampton,A.R.A.,
Reportsby theJuries,p. 1458.
Art Worker', ArtJournal,1897, p. 321. See also Tillyard, The
A. L. Baldry,'The Work of F. W. Pomeroy', Studio,NovemImpactof Modernism,
p. 146.
ber 1898, p. 78.
of theNationalAssociation
for theAdvancement
of Art
For example, the critic Claude Phillips who regularly 59 Transactions
and its Application
to Industry,
Birmingham,1891, p. 213.
reviewed the annual Royal Academy exhibitions in the
Magazineof Art (see for instance 1895, p. 68). Latergenera- 60 Other studio photographsof New Sculptorsreflect a similar
tions of critics and historianshave also found it difficult to
The
message. For examples, see J. Wood, Close Encounters:
accept the decorative aspectsof the New Sculpture.See for
Studioin theAge of the Camera(exhibitioncatalogue),
Sculptor's
and Critical
example A. Bury, Shadowof Eros:A Biographical
Henry Moore Institute,Leeds, 2002.
Study of the Life and Worksof Sir Alfred Gilbert,London,
61
See for example F. LynnJenkins'outline of the advantagesof
Dropmore Press, 1952, and K. Tiirr, Farbeund Naturalismus
electrotypingover bronze-casting,in M. H. Spielmann, 'F.
in der Skulpturdes 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts,
Mainz, Verlag
Lynn
Jenkins: His Decorative Sculpture and his Methods',
An
Von
1994.
to
a
Zabem,
Philip
interestingattempt identify
Magazine
of Art, 1901-2, pp. 298-9. My thanksto Matthew
genre of decorative sculpture (although focused more on a
Withey for directingme to this article.
Frenchperspective)is A. Kader,'The ConcentratedEssenceof
a Wriggle: Art Nouveau Sculpture',in P. Greenhalgh(ed.), 62 See my 'Small Sculpturec.1900' for more on the marketfor
'domestic'sculpture.
Art Nouveau1890-1914 (exhibitioncatalogue),London, V&A
Publications,2000, pp. 251-61.
63 French, particularlyParisian,bronze founders, led an inter[EdmundGosse], 'Sculptureat the Royal Academy', Saturday
nationalindustryin statuette-reproduction.For a comparison
of statuette-manufacture
in Franceand Britain,see my 'Bronze
Review,28 June 1890, p. 794.
statuettes and the sculpture-industryin nineteenth century
Baldry,'The Work of F. W. Pomeroy', p. 80. Other examples
Englandand France',in P. Mainardi(ed.), Copies,Variations,
include E. Gosse, 'LivingEnglishSculptors,II', CenturyMagaand Replicasin NineteenthCenturyArt, CambridgeUniversity
zine, vol. 31, 1886, p. 49, and C. Monkhouse, 'AlfredGilbert,
Press(forthcoming).
A.R.A., I', Magazineof Art, 1889, p. 4.
of the NationalAssociation
for theAdvancement
of Art
A. L. Baldry, 'Our Rising Artists:Alfred Drury, Sculptor', 64 Transactions
anditsApplication
to Industry,
Edinburgh,1890, p. 121. Edmund
Magazineof Art, 1900, p. 213.
Gosse, similarly, saw no contradiction between the New
J. Ruskin, Aratra Pentelici:Six Lectureson the Elementsof
Sculpture'scraft ethic and its need to sell, writing in 1890:
Sculpture,Givenin 1870, London, Smith, Elder & Co., 1872,
'Mr. Onslow Ford'selegant and spiritedwork speciallylends
pp. 173-4. The criticismsof the treatmentof marblework as
itself to reproductionin miniature'(E. Gosse, 'SmallBronzes',
mechanicallabour made by Ruskin and other writers in the
SaturdayReview,31 May 1890, p. 672).
second half of the nineteenth century foreshadowthe cult of
65
is not to underminethe pioneering achievementsof the
This
direct carvingin the earlytwentieth century,which reinvested
New Sculpture;on the contrary,it was by seizing on comthe materialwith a hand-craftethic. See for exampleEric Gill's
mercialtrendsthat they helped sculptureevolve from an elitist,
essay on 'stone carving' (1921) in his Art-Nonsenseand Other
narrowly-defineddisciplineinto a popular,accessibleart-form.
Essays,London, Cassell& Co., 1934, and K. Parkes,TheArtof
CarvedSculpture,
2 vols, London, Chapman& Hall, 1931. For 66 Furtherreadingincludes The SecondEmpire:Art in Franceunder
more recent analyses,see P. Curtis, 'Direct Carving and the
NapoleonIII (exhibition catalogue),PhiladelphiaMuseum of
notion of a "Modern British Sculpture": Internationalor
Art, 1978. For the representationof these artistsat the Great
Insular?',in H. M. Hughes & G. van Tuyl (eds.), Blast to
Exhibition,see P. Mainardi,'FrenchSculpture,EnglishMorals:
Freeze:BritishArt in the TwentiethCentury(exhibition cataat the CrystalPalace 1851', Gazettedes
Clesinger'sBacchante
logue), KunstmuseumWolfsberg, Ostfildern-Ruit,2002, and
BeauxArts, 1983, pp. 215-8.
P. Curtis,Sculpture
1900-1945: AfterRodin,Oxford University
67 See for example Greenhalgh(ed.), Art Nouveau.
Press, 1999. See also Tillyard, The Impactof Modernism,
68 M. Spielmann,'Surveyof the Fine ArtsSection', in Souvenirof
chapter4.
theFineArt section,Franco-British
Exhibition,1908, Compiledby
Reportsby theJuries,p. 1549.
SirIsidoreSpielmann
undertheauspices
of theBritishArt Committee,
WalterArmstrong(with referenceto HarryBates),'Sculpture',
Bemrose, London, 1908, p. 72.
ArtJournal,1887, p. 180.
69 As Tillyard has shown, despite evolving at and crossing the
Gosse, 'Sculptureat the Royal Academy',p. 794.
thresholdof Modernism,the New Sculpturetendsto be classed
The parallelextends to the evaluationof art through skilled
as 'Victorian'and excluded from early Modernist discourse.
execution. As Tillyardobserves(with referenceto the Artsand
This falsedivisionis beginning to be bridgedhowever; see for
CraftsMovement): 'The degree to which technique,form and
and ThePursuitof a
exampleDavid Getsy'santhology Sculpture
idea could be made to work together became the means for
ModernIdeal.

235

This content downloaded from 83.137.211.198 on Sat, 29 Aug 2015 09:21:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions